Subject: [mpls] FW: WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 15:32:41 +0200

Hi MPLS WG,

We have started a working group last call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
which we may be interested to have you review and comments on. Please
comment on the BESS mailing list as well as MPLS mailing list.

Brgds,

Stephane

From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]> 
Sent: vendredi 3 juillet 2020 15:29
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

Hello WG,

This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-02 [1].

This poll runs until * the 20th Of July *.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF
IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
all the Authors and Contributors. 

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in
conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. 

Thank you,

Stephane & Matthew

[1]  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/

[2]
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 11:49:07 +0800

Stephane and Matthew,

Thanks for sending this to the mpls wg, LSP Ping is one of of out key
protocols and assignments of LSP Ping code points should be reviewed by
the mpls working group.

bess wg, (mpls wg for info),

There are a few comments on the IANA section and the use of the code 
points you request that IANA shall allocate.

First, the scope of the sub-TLVs allocated from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV 
Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry. Code points from this registry are
valid for three TLVs (1, 16 and 21), it is the impression that the draft
try to allocate four sub-TLVs for TLV 1 only. If the sub-TLV is not
valid for TLVs 16 and 21 that needs to be carefully specified in the
document. If this is the case it would imply a not insignificant
implementation complexity.

Second, the registry from which the allocation will be done needs to
clearly pointed out.

The IANA section talks about:

   "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
    Parameters - TLVs" registry.

There is no such registry. I often use the following terminology to
get the registry names right, Name Space, Registry, sub-registry.

In your case the namespace would be "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters"

The registry would be "TLVs"

And the sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21"

One way of clearly pointing out drom which sub-registry you wantt the
sub-TLVs to be appointed would be:
   "IANA is requested to assign value for the four sub-TLVs listed below
    from the Standards Track" (0-16383) range, in the "Sub-TLVs for TLV
    Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry, in the "TLVs" registry in the
    "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
    Ping Parameters" name space."

You should also say that you want the lowest 4 free values.

Note 1: I had some communication with the editor that indicates that
this is the correct range.

Note 2: There is a draft that will soon be wglc'ed in the MPLS working
group, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update". As far as I can
see none of the changes to the LSP Ping registers done in the mpls
draft has any effect on the allocation made by this draft.

I have consulted our registry experts (Carlos and Mach) to look at the
IANA registry in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping. The point that they
brought back was that the scope of the requested sub-TLVs (TLV 1 only or
TLV 1, 16 and 21) must be made very clear.

For the allocation "Return Codes" that is cledarer. Say "The Return
Codes" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space."  And that the two 
lowest standard actions code points should be allocated.

I would use bullets to list the return codes, using numbers might be
taken as that this is the values you want.

There are some language that should be considered, e.g. from section
8.2:

    This document proposes two new Return Codes, which SHOULD be included
    in the Echo Reply message by a PE in response to LSP Ping Echo
    Request message:

This are rather general statement, and it is true only EVPN and PBB
context, right? Please make specific.

The same would be true for this from section 8.1.:

    This document defines 4 new sub-TLV type to be included in Target FEC
    Stack TLV (TLV Type 1) [RFC8029] in LSP Ping.

It is only included in EVPN and PBB context, and I would substitute
"LSP Ping" with "echo request and echo reply messages"

/Loa

On 03/07/2020 21:32, [email-masked] wrote:
> Hi MPLS WG,
> 
> We have started a working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping which we may be interested to have you 
> review and comments on. Please comment on the BESS mailing list as well 
> as MPLS mailing list.
> 
> Brgds,
> 
> Stephane
> 
> *From:[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* vendredi 3 juillet 2020 15:29
> *To:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
> 
> Hello WG,
> 
> This poll runs until * the 20^th Of July *.
> 
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with 
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> 
> relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers 
> from all the Authors and Contributors.
> 
> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please 
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet 
> been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/
> 
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Parag Jain (paragj)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:47:08 +0000

Hi Loa,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on the draft. I'll incorporate them and publish a new version.

Thanks 
Parag

On 2020-07-11, 11:49 PM, "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Stephane and Matthew,

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /Loa

    --